If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

On 1 November 2011 I applied an update that claimed to be the ESV 2011 release.
I haven't yet had the time to compare the databases of the "old" and "new" ESV 2011 releases, so I'm wondering if anyone knows why the re-release.

On 1 November 2011 I applied an update that claimed to be the ESV 2011 release.
I haven't yet had the time to compare the databases of the "old" and "new" ESV 2011 releases, so I'm wondering if anyone knows why the re-release.

--Jim

I was accidentally deleted from the update site and we just restored it. No harm done in redownloading.
Mike

The annual re-release of ESV 2011? And, what is a .wct database file?

I recently noticed this "Recommended Update"

Being a good little boy, I did the update (I always compulsively do all updates, even the optional ones). But I always want to know what has changed when a version is updated, so I backed up all of the datasets in my BibleWorks 9 folders that were ESV.xxx. After running the updater, all of the "Date modified" stamps compared equal.

Being an unnaturally curious person, I looked a bit further, and found a file "BibleWorks 9\patches\_updstat.tx". This contained a bunch of the following couplets:Applying ADD File Patch for 'databases\esv.xxx'
New Version of File 'databases\esv.xxx' already exists.Near the bottom of the file was this line:Files making up New System are already Up-To-Date !!!

So I'm wondering whether perhaps BW's update process has a built in feature to do a January deletion. :)
Since last time I mentioned this Mike responded with this:

Originally Posted by MBushell

I was accidentally deleted from the update site and we just restored it. No harm done in redownloading.
Mike

I must say I found my rooting around in the patches directory to be a very educational activity.
I have now added an additional step to my update procedure: backing up the _updstat.txt file so I will have a better audit trail of what happened.

I also found a file type I hadn't noticed before: .wct. (I had 10 esv.xxx files; BWW said it would update 10)
I have 25 of these in my "databases" directory; they vary from 1KB to 7KB in size, and appear to contain binary data. They are all for versions that I have used, but do not include nearly all the versions that I have used. They include some, but not all, of the versions I have added, and some of the versions that ship with BW9 (wtt, wtm, bgt, bgm, kjv, etc.)
KDiff3 declared bgt.wct & bgm.wct to be binary equal, even though they have "Date modified" dates that are about 7.5 months apart.
wtt.wct & wtm.wct are the same size (3,884 bytes) but the contents of the files are very different from each other.
I'd be grateful if anyone can shed light on the nature and use of these .wct files.

I can't answer all your questions, but it does seem that the latest ESV update did serve a purpose. It came in response to a problem someone was having with the ESV on the Mac Preview. See this thread.

If I am remembering correctly, I believe that the wct files are word count files used with the Stats Tab. I believe that they are user-generated when using the Stats Tab, and not files that come with a new installation of BibleWorks.

If I am remembering correctly, I believe that the wct files are word count files used with the Stats Tab. I believe that they are user-generated when using the Stats Tab, and not files that come with a new installation of BibleWorks.

Blessings,
Glenn

Thanks, Glenn. That makes a lot of sense. The .wct files that I have are for versions that I probably used with the Stats Tab.

Originally Posted by Michael Hanel

I can't answer all your questions, but it does seem that the latest ESV update did serve a purpose. It came in response to a problem someone was having with the ESV on the Mac Preview. See this thread.

Thanks for pointing me to that thread; I don't usually follow the Mac stuff.
But I don't think that problem was related to the ESV re-release. The verse he displayed looked exactly the way it does in my browse window.
What was troubling slackcc was the Tr Notes, aka Version Notes, not XML code.
Maybe he accidentally used the "n" browse window shortcut key? Or perhaps the new Executable interacts differently with Mac environment for this feature.
Given that this latest ESV "update" provided files that were identical to those of the previous ESV update, it could make a difference only if the user's ESV database(s) had been corrupted, and the updater was able to detect that corruption.
The updater reported that for each of the 9 files in my update "Copying failed", and later said that "Files making up New System are already Up-To-Date !!!" (_updstat.txt)

Thanks for pointing me to that thread; I don't usually follow the Mac stuff.
But I don't think that problem was related to the ESV re-release. The verse he displayed looked exactly the way it does in my browse window.

Unless I read that post wrong, when he was looking at the browse window he saw:

Judges 1:1 After the death of Joshua, the people of Israel ainquired of the LORD, b"Who shall go up first for us against the Canaanites, to fight against them?"{<p><rsup>a</rsup> Num 27:21; 1Sa 22:10; 2Sa 2:1 <p><rsup>b</rsup> ch. 20:18 }

Are you saying you see that too??? You should not see that entire section contained in the { }. If you do, there's something wrong with your ESV version.

If you toggle translator notes you will get the superscript a and b to toggle off and on, but it shouldn't show you that stuff in { }. That is all supposed to be displayed in the Analysis window.

Oops.

Originally Posted by Michael Hanel

Unless I read that post wrong, when he was looking at the browse window he saw:

Judges 1:1 After the death of Joshua, the people of Israel ainquired of the LORD, b"Who shall go up first for us against the Canaanites, to fight against them?"{<p><rsup>a</rsup> Num 27:21; 1Sa 22:10; 2Sa 2:1 <p><rsup>b</rsup> ch. 20:18 }

Are you saying you see that too??? You should not see that entire section contained in the { }. If you do, there's something wrong with your ESV version.

If you toggle translator notes you will get the superscript a and b to toggle off and on, but it shouldn't show you that stuff in { }. That is all supposed to be displayed in the Analysis window.

Right you are. I didn't realize that there was a working scroll bar at the bottom of the screen copy.
I still doubt that the ESV update could have been the thing that fixed it (unless they shipped a different update to MAC users).